shallow reaction to a serious issue
Aug. 28th, 2012 10:10 pmSo this bullied 14-year-old was given $40000 worth of plastic surgery by a charitable foundation and one could say all sorts of things about our cultural priorities and conformity and indeed that article says some of them, but damn, all I can think looking at this picture is how way much better she looked to me before the surgery.

Obviously Nadia Ilse's face belongs just to her, and it's up to her (and her parents, as she's a minor, and the medical service providers doing the work) what she does with it, she certainly doesn't owe it to *me* to look one way or the other. But, dang. A year of college tuition, to take everything interesting about her face and try to make it as generic as possible? And end up looking... *wrong* around the eyes somehow, although admittedly that might be the terrible eyebrows, which she could presumably grow out again.
So this makes me wonder... what if I did find the "improved" version more attractive? Would I still find conformity to the beauty standard so distasteful, if the beauty standard were somehow magically more aligned with my own aesthetic opinions? Hrm.

Obviously Nadia Ilse's face belongs just to her, and it's up to her (and her parents, as she's a minor, and the medical service providers doing the work) what she does with it, she certainly doesn't owe it to *me* to look one way or the other. But, dang. A year of college tuition, to take everything interesting about her face and try to make it as generic as possible? And end up looking... *wrong* around the eyes somehow, although admittedly that might be the terrible eyebrows, which she could presumably grow out again.
So this makes me wonder... what if I did find the "improved" version more attractive? Would I still find conformity to the beauty standard so distasteful, if the beauty standard were somehow magically more aligned with my own aesthetic opinions? Hrm.
no subject
Date: 2012-08-29 02:35 am (UTC)As an aside, I believe OKCupid ran some stats at one point and determined that, on average, people who had pictures on the site taken with an SLR were much more likely to be contacted than those with pictures taken by compact cameras, who in turn did much better than people with pictures taken with cell phones. Photo quality matters a lot for perceived attractiveness.
no subject
Date: 2012-08-29 03:01 am (UTC)i think a story along those lines has a lot of potential to handle some of the idiosyncrasies of the stats. for example, Leica point-n-shoots on average took more attractive pictures than the leading SLR brands, and much more attractive pictures than other point-n-shoots. now, at the time, i'm pretty sure every point-n-shoot sold as a Leica was a high-end Panasonic point-n-shoot on the inside, with case design and branding by Leica, sold at a substantial mark-up (this is still mostly true, with one or two exceptions). so, basically, buying a Leica point-n-shoot meant paying a substantial premium for a functionally identical product that was a more prestigious fashion statement. is it any wonder that the people who would make that call had friends who were judged more attractive? (relatedly, at the time, Kodak was a low-prestige digital camera brand, Panasonic interchangeable-lens cameras were new and trendy, and so on.)
no subject
Date: 2012-08-29 11:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-09-01 06:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-09-01 07:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-08-29 02:19 pm (UTC)(I've also now skimmed the article from The Nation, which I hadn't realized was critical of the story.)
no subject
Date: 2012-08-29 08:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-08-30 01:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-08-29 02:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-08-29 04:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-09-01 06:40 pm (UTC)